NoodleCast #119: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

 Posted by on 27 February 2012 at 8:00 am  NoodleCast
Feb 272012
 

On Sunday, 26 February 2012, I broadcast a new episode of my live Philosophy in Action Webcast, where I answer questions on the application of rational principles to the challenges of living a virtuous, happy, and free life in a live, hour-long webcast. The webcast is broadcast live every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. In the webcast, I broadcast on video, Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers is on audio, and the audience is in a text chat.

As usual, if you can’t attend the live webcast, you can listen to it later as audio-only podcast by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS Feed:

You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

We hope that you’ll join the live webcast, because that’s more lively and engaging than the podcast. People talk merrily in the text chat while watching the webcast. Greg and I enjoy the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

The Podcast: Episode: 26 February 2012

Listen Now

    Duration: 1:15:06

Download the Episode

Subscribe to the Feed

The Segments: Episode: 26 February 2012

The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!

Introduction (0:00)

This week, Trey was visiting, but mostly I’ve ben sick. I’m also working on moving NoodleFood to Philosophy in Action – and from Blogger to WordPress.

Question 1: Consent in Sex (3:39)

What constitutes consent in sex? Can a person give tacit consent by his or her actions? Is explicit consent required for some sex acts? Once consent has been given, when and how can a person withdraw that consent? Does the legal perspective on these questions differ from the moral perspective?

My Answer, In Brief: To consent to sex requires communicating a willingness engaging in the act, whether by word or deed. Consent can be withdrawn at any point, and for the other person to ignore that constitutes sexual assault.

Links:

 

  • Law Prof on the Loose: Rape Law by Jon Siegel

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question 2: Terminating Online Versus In-Person Acquaintances (45:34)

What’s the proper threshold for cutting off a digital versus in-person acquaintance? Morally, when it is wrong to end your friendly interactions with an in-person acquaintance? And when is it wrong not to do so? Does the answer differ for a digital acquaintance – meaning, for example, someone that you know only via Facebook?

My Answer, In Brief: No hard and fast rules can apply here, simply because the nature of online and in-person relationships varies so much. However, every person ought to make sure that his relationships, whether primarily online, in-person, or a mixture of both, serve his purposes well.

Links:

Question 3: Compensating the Victims of Your Negligence (51:48)

What should you do for a person that you injured in a car accident that was your fault? Does a person have moral obligations – over and above any legal obligations – to the victim, since the accident was due to your own carelessness or mistake?

My Answer, In Brief: If you’ve harmed someone by your negligence, your moral and legal obligation is to make them whole by compensating them for the harm you’ve caused.

Question 4: The Meaning of Faith (54:44)

Is it wrong to use “faith” to mean “trust and confidence in a person”? Some people talk about having “faith” in their friends or in themselves – and by that, they mean that they trust and have confidence in those people. Is it wrong to use “faith” in that way? In other words, blind faith is wrong, but is all faith blind faith?

My Answer, In Brief: The term “faith,” when used to refer to trust or confidence in a person, suggests that such is not justified or warranted based on facts. That’s why I avoid the term, and I suggest that others do the same. However, a person is not corrupt for using it.

Rapid Fire Questions (1:07:59)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

    • Is a person rationally considered “male” or “female” based upon: (a) their genitals or other anatomical parts of their body which are involved in sexual reproduction, or (b) or their emotional and psychological wishes to be a man or a woman?Should states have referendums on gay marriage?

 

  • Has social media or technology changed how people engage each other for sex?

 

 

  • Has social media or technology changed how people engage each other for sex?

 

 

  • Should states have referendums on gay marriage?

 

Conclusion (1:13:59)

Comments or questions? Contact us!

 

 

Support the Webcast

The Philosophy in Action Webcast is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing it, but it’s not free for us to produce: it requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value what we’re doing, please contribute to the webcast’s tip jar!

If you’d like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.

Thank you, if you’ve contributed to the webcast! You make our work possible every week, and we’re so grateful for that! Also, whether you’re able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about this webcast to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming webcasts.

   
Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha